Africa, Development & Aid, Environment, Headlines, Poverty & SDGs, The Southern Africa Water Wire, Water & Sanitation

Q&A: "We Are Certainly Making Progress, But It's Slow"

Interview with Ben Taylor, policy advisor in Tanzania for WaterAid

DAR ES SALAAM, May 27 2008 (IPS) - When it comes to getting water supplies in Dar es Salaam, it's too expensive to be poor.

A lack of infrastructure and the expense of new water connections have combined to make piped water unavailable in most of Tanzania's commercial hub, notably the poorer areas.

This obliges many of the city's four million residents to resort to vendors for their needs. However, water bought from these traders can be 2,500 percent more expensive than piped supplies, meaning that potable water is most costly for those least able to afford it (see TANZANIA: Running Water Remains a Pipe Dream for Many).

WaterAid, a London-based charity that provides water and sanitation in developing states, calculates that 20 litres of water bought from a vendor costs about 200 Tanzanian shillings (approximately 16 cents), against eight shillings (less than one cent) for the same amount of water received from Dar es Salaam's water system. It is estimated that 20 litres is the minimum amount of water required to cover a person's daily needs.

Reporter Sarah McGregor talked to Ben Taylor, a policy advisor to WaterAid in Tanzania, to get a sense of how these difficulties might be resolved.

IPS: What factors have led to poor people paying more for water in Dar es Salaam?

BEN TAYLOR: One obstacle is there are no pipe networks at all in large areas of the city…In Dar es Salaam, the development of water infrastructure has always been in the communities where wealthy people live. In poorer neighbourhoods there is very little by way of pipes.

Even if there is a pipe network, (a) house might not have the money to connect – which the utility charges for. There is supposed to be a first-time connection fund; those paying water bills contribute a percentage from their bills to subsidise connection costs for poorer communities. In practice, there is very little evidence the fund is being used for that.

There is an alternative to trying to establish a pipe network with a connection to every household, which is an expensive option. The cheaper way is to construct a small kiosk, which is essentially a small shop that sells water on to consumers. The utility provides the kiosk with a main pipe, they have a meter, and they can sell by the bucket to the surrounding community.

Dar es Salaam has dozens now, and we think that's good progress. But a couple thousand or more kiosks would be more appropriate, (and) there are problems with the kiosks. They are unreliable because water isn't coming 24 hours and kiosk operators may be charging a slightly higher tariff rate. They are supposed to be charging the lowest rate, not just the standard rates.

There are also land tenure issues because the kiosks were constructed in a hurry, without much thought about whether they should be on public land, the utility should purchase or lease it, or whether the operator should also own the land.

IPS: City Water – a consortium that included a British firm, Biwater, the German engineering firm Gauff, and a Tanzanian investor – had its contract to operate Dar es Salaam's water network cut short in 2005. Tanzania's government said City Water failed to make required improvements with water supply, while the consortium said it had not been provided with information needed to operate effectively. Can you tell us more about the problems surrounding this arrangement?

BT: Not enough care was taken by the World Bank in preparing the contract and reviewing the capacity of City Water. Not enough care was taken by City Water to assess the situation of the network. There really was an incredible lack of information: no one knew where the pipe network was, how many customers there were, how much revenue was coming in.

I then think the way the contract was terminated was clumsy. Some say it was a way of achieving political popularity by kicking out a European company from an unpopular privatised utility.

IPS: What is the situation now?

BT: DAWASCO (the Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Corporation) was brought in to take over. It is owned by the government, the chief executive is appointed by the government, and they took over most of City Water's office and staff. But, it's operated as a company: state-run, but profit-driven.

The problem is that DAWASCO has to focus on their own bottom line and there is no mechanism by which the government has tried to encourage them to focus on the poorer communities.

In addition, they have challenges in the billing and collection system, and in the state of the network, which is very old.

There is a question whether operating the water system in Dar es Salaam should be a profitable model or if it should be public and need a government subsidy. The danger with subsidies is that by throwing money at an unprofitable utility you give it less incentive to work efficiently. But if you target the subsidy, then you can find a business model that is profitable and help poorer communities. You can use it to get kiosks constructed, making sure they are run effectively, and at better tariffs.

IPS: Does Tanzania have sufficient water resources to meet the national consumption needs – and how could the country make better use of the lakes and rivers available?

BT: The current estimate in Tanzania is (that) the amount of water being produced should be enough – if it is used properly.

But much is being wasted. A lot of water that Tanzania extracts from rivers is lost through leaky pipes or illegal connections. Only about 20 percent of the water produced is sold and paid for, which is a very small percentage. In big Western cities the standard is close to about 10 to 15 percent of what is produced.

Another challenge is that the city is growing quickly – that is, more people to provide for.

IPS: DAWASCO is trying to chase down water bill debtors and encourage new customers to pay their bills on time. Why do only a fraction of people who access the municipal water supply settle up for the service?

BT: There is quite a long history of people creating illegal connections. If you can find a pipe you can tap into it, and that is hard to prevent. There are also a lot of illegal connections that, in the past, DAWASCO workers would collude in. A customer would ask a worker for a connection, pay them a bribe, and then not have to pay the connection fee.

There are also technical problems with metering because the meter can run even if water isn't available 24 hours. People are understandably unwilling to pay for water which they never received.

IPS: Is there is a law or policy in Tanzania that guarantees citizens water as a basic right?

BT: The rhetoric of government is that clean and safe water is a specific target by 2025. That is 17 years from now, so it is obviously not something that is "do-able" soon. We all recognise that it would be a major challenge in the short term.

IPS: Does Tanzania stand a reasonable chance of achieving the Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of people without potable water and sanitation by 2015, compared to 1990 levels?

BT: I think it's unlikely. We are certainly making progress, but it's slow. We are more likely to meet the target in water than sanitation – and in urban areas we're more likely to meet water supply goals than in rural areas.

The problem is that the historic data available makes it hard to know. A database is just being set up now. At the moment we are essentially relying on household surveys that aren't done every year.